Further Restrictions 'Stricter than March' Needed

[Bewareoftheblob]

From the Telegraph today:

Sage advisers are calling for a lockdown tougher than the one seen in March as they argue the current restrictions do not go far enough.

Professor Susan Michie, a health psychology professor at University College London who sits on a Sage subcommittee, said more stringent action was needed.

While around 90 per cent of Britons are sticking to the rules there are also "more people out and about”, Prof Michie told the Today programme.

"It should definitely be tightened,” she said. "This is quite a lax lockdown because we’ve still got a lot of household contact, people go in and out of other’s houses. We should have stricter rather than a less strict lockdown than we had in March.

“You have this wide definition of critical workers and therefore you’ve got really busy public transport. There's also this new variant, and we have the winter season and the virus survives for longer in the cold.”

Link

Do you think they'll follow through with this? Reduce the amount of children in schools, ban support bubbles, heavier policing of people going about their daily lives?

@BlueSussex

Do you think they'll follow through with this? Reduce the amount of children in schools, ban support bubbles, heavier policing of people going about their daily lives?

Sadly I think they will have to as sufficient numbers of people aren't obeying the law.

No no no. I need my support bubble, I won't cope without it.

The biggest spreaders will be work places, schools and people going into each others homes or being in crowded indoor spaces. The risk of it spreading outdoors is low so concentrating on things like people driving 5 miles to exercise and playgrounds is pointless. If you restrict outdoor activity too much more people will end up in each others houses and that is difficult to police.

@GypsyLee

You mean an actual lockdown then. About bloody time, only taken them a year. Schools need to close properly, paper packs will sort anybody without technology, and parents will have to share their childcare between them.

A proper lockdown apart from the workers who need to work to enable you to stay at home?

I think schools including nurseries should only offer places for NHS/Care/Police/Fire staff for the next 2-3weeks. As this would stop many people with children from working it would become a very harsh lockdown for 2-3weeks and therefore disrupt the covid transmission

Except NHS staff would have to walk to work if there’s no filling stations open or garages or repair their cars or maintain the roads . Or bus and train drivers and maintenance staff.

And they’d all be very hungry as no food shops open, drivers, logistics and distribution staff.

And NHS staff wouldn’t get paid if no bank staff.

And hospitals would have no light , power or water without the people who run utilities. And no clean laundry, food or drugs.

And lots of people would die at home with no power, water or food. And more would die of dysentery with no clean water and the streets full of rubbish and rats.

Housebound frail elderly would starve to death at home with no carers or food.

But apart from that it’s a great idea.

[quote FizzyFanta1]@MummaBear4321

We should absolutely have to fill in forms before leaving the house like in France.

I'd also look to enforce the system used in Spain where DC under 14 were not allowed to leave home at all for any reason.[/quote]
Oh hi again! Another name change?

I feel we're going to pay for it either through a rise in infections or a mental health crisis. I know so many people on the edge.
Where I work we stopped leave for service users during the first lockdown. We're not this time due to a rise in agitation and incidents last time. You cannot coop people up inside for weeks on end.
Last weekend I was going to meet my dm in a park for a walk as i thought it might be the last time before lockdown. It rained so we couldn't go and I cried like a child. The need for companionship and face to face interaction is so strong, we are social animals.

@EleanorRigbyWasReal

I don’t want to sound “down on the kids” but each time I go out, I’m getting more and more anxious about groups of teens not wearing masks and not distancing.

I don’t understand why not. They’re not babies and toddlers. Are they a bit thick? Parents don’t care?

Genuine question. Don’t flame me, please.

Outside? Why would they be wearing masks outside? I agree on the groups though.

The important thing missing from the March lockdown was travel.

@GoldenOmber they are eligible for the support. They have chosen to take advantage and class themselves as being essential.

Same as what many others have done this time around.

Which is why I stated in my post that NS has mentioned this in last two briefings and it seems extremely likely that this will be getting some more clarification so they can't continue.

As all this does is cause more possible places for the virus to be spread.

@benedicto

Support bubbles are essential for those who really do need them and are really isolated. The current criteria for support bubbles are fine. The problem is the abuse of them. To prevent this, it would be relatively simple for the government to create a website where you list the one support bubble that you have and the reason for this. That would stop people having several or creating new ones everytime they want to socialise with someone different. it is quite easy to enable those that need support bubbles to have them and stop the abuse of this lifeline without removing them altogether.

Really good idea

parents will have to share their childcare between them

Oh I do like the quaint MN belief that everyone is friendly enough with other parents to share childcare. Anyway how would that be any better than childcare support bubbles?

I think takeaways need to stay open so that essential workers can get food on the go - although I guess you could say they can take a picnic (is that ok for the Derbyshire police though?)

Reading some posts on here, I think some will be gutted when restrictions end, they like that they can complain about others are doing things they don't like.

I’m afraid even for the most law abiding citizens the cost is becoming too high. If shops are limiting capacity then it doesn’t matter that people are buying cushions and drinking coffee. If the lockdown rules become totally unreasonable- you can’t drive 5 miles to an outdoor space for a walk, a single people can’t see a soul then it will be an awful lot more than 10% who make the decision to put quality of life first. This is a fine balancing act

We all have a duty to keep an eye on our neighbours and hold them accountable for putting others at risk, whether that is going for multiple walks per day or buying non essential items from the shop

The German Democratic Republic wants its informant back. Where's a TARDIS when you need one?

It seems to be business as usual in my Rea of London. loads of traffic, loads of people walking about, going into shops and in the park. I have moved my dog walks to early morning and late evening because I don't feel safe in the park during the day as there are so many people.

People are bored and taking any excuse to go out and about.

I think the most concerning thing is that the two areas most responsible for infections are not restricted sufficiently by this lockdown.

Anyone who works in an office should be WFH. Employers are taking the piss hugely on this.

There are far too many children in schools and nurseries. There should be a short defined list of key workers and anyone with two parents where one is not a key worker should not be eligible.

If you don't control those two elements then the numbers will not come down.

Personally I'd also be a lot tighter on shops and cafes. The risk is that by trying not to be harsh and close them all you are doing is dragging out weeks of sub-par trading and lockdown. Better to do it right at get the numbers right down.

Oh and stop letting people in unless they quarantine properly in a pre-booked hotel for 14 days instead of using completely discredited lateral flow tests. Other countries are managing this and we have not even tried.

@MrsFogi

Well the current "lockdown" is a complete waste of time - around here people are just carrying on with life as normal just with less shopping opportunities and a somewhat reduced social life.

Isn't the measure of whether or not it was efficacious demonstrated by reduced infection in the locality of the lockdown you refer to?

Given that viral particles can travel on dust and wind, perhaps lockdowns are not as successful as people would like to believe.

[quote FizzyFanta1]@rookiemere

I think rather than ‘busybodies’ you mean ‘responsible citizens’.

We all have a duty to keep an eye on our neighbours and hold them accountable for putting others at risk, whether that is going for multiple walks per day or buying non essential items from the shop.[/quote]
No, busybodies is correct.

Care to share what 'essential items' are? How do you suggest we keep an eye on what our neighbours are buying, make them unpack their shopping at the gate?

1/6 of schools have over 30% of kids in. So 5/6 are not by any means busy, the small amount with large numbers need looking at, or the curriculum at primary needs to be reduced so that they can space out and do lots of outdoor activities

@OnlyTeaForMe

I know it's controversial, but I think places of worship should also close - they are enclosed spaces full of people for quite long periods of time.

Agree. They are already starting to close voluntarily in London. My kid can't go to school but I can go to church? Nuts.

I support the lockdown. I’m complying. I’m scared. But given this new strain, and lockdown fatigue, I don’t believe we can ‘control’ the virus in the sense of bringing rates sharply down. It was made clear in March that lockdown was really a one time only thing and you had to be careful when you deployed it.

I think sadly it’s about damage limitation and trying to reduce the extent to which the NHS gets overwhelmed. I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m not, we need to be cautious about ever more restrictions which cause untold misery and suffering in the cause of a battle we cannot win.

@FizzyFanta1 bloody glad I don't live beside you. We don't live in North Korea yet thankfully.

Give schools the power to challenge key worker parents. We have some really stretching the definition of key worker and some demanding a place when the other parent is unemployed, furloughed or a stay at home parent (no disabilities or similar needs). Universities are taking the P majorly with declaring all their employees to be key workers. They are just not! Some are, yes, but a blanket declaration and a demand that even if WFH in admin roles without student contact you should send your children to school full time is very unhelpful. This needs to be challenged. There are other organisations and companies taking the P too but this is one example impacting my school significantly.

Parents doing the right thing in keeping their children at home if they can would be horrified if we could publish a list of job roles and working days/hours of parents of children that we have been pressurised into accepting full time in school. It’s shaming in some cases. Not all. Genuine need is there for the most part but some are embarrassing compared to others keeping their children at home.

Isn’t it a bit early to see the curve flatten in this lockdown? It only became law 3 days ago. aren’t the current infection rises are due to mixing over the Xmas and new year period?